Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.65 seconds)
Krishnandan Kumar & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 5 August, 2016 cites

Sushil Kumar Sen vs State Of Bihar on 17 March, 1975

20. It is also pointed out by Mr. Giri, learned Senior Counsel, that when an attempt was made, under 2009 Rules, to remove a primary teacher, if he failed in evaluation test twice, this was challenged by way of a writ petition, which gave rise to the decision in Dr. Sushil Kumar's case (supra) and though the decision, in Dr. Sushil Kumar's case (supra), is sought to be relied upon by the respondents in support of Patna High Court CWJC No.10187 of 2016 dt. 05.08.2016 17/34 their case for making the present impugned amendments, the fact remains that the decision, in Dr. Sushil Kumar's case (supra), was given, because of the concession by the State inasmuch as it is specifically recorded, at paragraph 14, in Dr. Sushil Kumar's case (supra), that the learned Additional Advocate General submitted before the Court that even if a primary teacher failed for the second time in the evaluation test, he would not be removed from service and the Court, therefore, took the view that no cause survived for determination.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 232 - K K Mathew - Full Document

State Of Jammu & Kashmir vs Triloki Nath Khosa & Ors on 26 September, 1973

32. In other words, Government can, unilaterally, alter terms and conditions of its employees, though, in practice, such alteration may face protest from the employees concerned. This does not, however, mean, I must hasten to add, that the consent of the Government employee is a condition precedent for changing the terms and conditions of his service by the statutory or constitutional authority in terms Patna High Court CWJC No.10187 of 2016 dt. 05.08.2016 21/34 of the provisions of the relevant statutes and/or the Constitution. A reference may be made, in this regard, to the case State of Jammu & Kashmir v. T.N. Khosa (AIR 1074 SC 1) wherein the Supreme Court held thus:
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 2535 - V R Iyer - Full Document

T.R. Kapur & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 17 December, 1986

In T.R. Kapur v. State of Haryana (AIR 1987 SC 415) three petitioners, T.R. Kapur, Mahinder Singh and V.D. Grover, who were Diploma holders, were working as Sub Divisional Officers on regular basis under the unamended Rule 6(b) of the Punjab Service of Engineers Class-I, Public Works Department (Irrigation Branch) Rules, 1964. They were eligible for promotion as Executive. Engineer in Class-I service despite the fact that they did not possess a degree in Engineering. By the Patna High Court CWJC No.10187 of 2016 dt. 05.08.2016 23/34 notification, dated 22.6.1984, Rule 6(b) was amended and it was provided that a degree in Engineering was an essential qualification for promotion as Assistant Engineers (Irrigation Branch) to Class-I service and thereby the petitioners were rendered ineligible for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer in Class-I service. The amendment was challenged in this court by way of a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. This Court came to the conclusion that the retrospective effect given to the amendment was violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India on the following reasoning : (SCC p. 595, Para 16).
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 215 - A P Sen - Full Document
1   2 Next